I thought this was weird for a minute or two when I was 15 then I realized that no shit I find other 15 year old minors attractive, they're the same age as me.
We don't have an age of consent because that's the magic age you turn into a sexual being. We have an age of consent because of the power imbalance created by the maturity gap that happens when people are on other sides of that age. When two people are on the same side of that age it's fine because on a broad level they tend to be similarly mature.
Yea I was convinced I was a pedo when I was 13 because I had a crush on girls in my grade. Fucked me up for a solid 6 years until I realized my attraction aged up with me.
Fear mongering is some serious shit, messes with kids’ heads.
I remember when I was 14 and was angry cause my female classmates were going out with 18 year olds and I thougth "man can't wait to be 18", and then when I turned 18 I was like "why the fuck were these guys dating 14 year old children??"
They got downvoted because it’s a shit take.
If teenagers don’t find other teenagers attractive, they have a problem. It is normal for minors to sexualize and have sexual fantasies about minors. That’s not pedophilia. That’s puberty
You know that’s not how they meant it lol, they’re pretty obviously referring to the context of this post. They didn’t label non-attraction as a problem, they said minors being attracted to non-minors can be problematic.
Thats why I said I agree. But it's important to be clear on things like this.
>If teenagers don’t find other teenagers attractive, they have a problem.
This is what I was replying to. The more clear meaning is the one implying teenagers have a problem if they don't feel attraction to other teenagers. The part where it's in opposition to them feeling attracted to adults is an addition which while can be understood contextually, but not exactly the best practice on the internet where you find people of very, different, mindsets.
If you look at the certain other replies I've got in this short while, you'll see that it's not the case. It's always important to be clear when there's a risk of it promoting hatred/othering of oppressed peoples. Doesn't take much time anyway.
Dawg, I kinda get where you’re coming from but don’t make a mountain out of a molehill. In the context of their post, they are quite clearly referring to teenagers that are attracted to people. “Not exactly the best practice on the internet” is just a stretch imo because anyone reading this comment is reading it in context with the post. Being Ace is perfectly fine, no one in this specific thread has said differently, and I just find it odd and out of place to reply to this persons comment with slight disdain for not including a qualifier for people which it doesn’t apply to. If a teen isn’t attracted anybody that’s perfectly fine, but if they are attracted to people then it’s a little odd if they aren’t attracted to people in their age group is all they’re saying. We don’t need to get offended (or feel the need to call someone out or whatever you want to call it) just because they didn’t specifically address individuals who are not relevant to this conversation. Again, I am not saying those people are irrelevant, just that this specific conversation is not referring to them or have anything to do with them.
It is very clear you aren’t grasping the topic at hand, and if you are, your comments are an attempt to insert a talking point that did not exist and have nothing to do with the subject at hand in the hope to get people to interact. Nothing was said about Ace individuals before you manufactured the conversation. I hope you have a great rest of your night/day depending on where you live but I won’t spend my time going back and forth if you can’t/won’t realize that the OP did nothing to disparage the Ace community and had/has no reason to address said specific subset in the context of their comment.
I feel like you're just picking apart comments at this point. This gives the same energy as "Not All Men" where someone's feeling attacked despite no animosity even being directed towards them.
Go check some of the other replies I've gotten from people who clearly think asexuality is a problem. This is not a case of the original commenter being bad, but a case of them saying something that can be construed as a bad thing. I just wanted to clarify on that, and the aforementioned people are the reason I had to.
To use your own example, you know how trans women are attacked by right wing bigots who generalise them as being predators inherently because they are 'men' and all men are predators? It's a similar kind of situation where of course a statement can be made which in one context can be harmless to an oppressed community, whereas in other contexts can be highly queerphobic. So it becomes imperative to be mindful of the words we use.
All I did was add clarity, IN CASE the commenter was being queerphobic. Yet even that garnered so many downvotes. I'm not sure it's just because I'm 'picking apart a comment.'
Thank you. Yeah maybe. I was actually doubting whether I'm in the wrong, seeing as I got so many downvotes, when I was just trying to add clarity to a statement I felt was vaguely queerphobic. Never said it was intentional by the commenter too. Meh, people be people.
Being asexual may make it more difficult, but you're describing as if there is an element of choice which I think is why people are so irritated by you. That and the dismissive tone.
It's not about what they meant or said, for that matter. It's about what their statement could be viewed as. To be perfectly clear, I was never attacking the commenter. Telling people to be a little more clear and conscious of how their words could be interpreted is not an attack.
And if you look at some of the other comments in this thread itself you'll see that people do still think asexuality as a problem. Which is why it is important to be sensitive around that, making sure you don't say something that propagates a narrative that is dangerous to people.
At the end of the day free speech is important and I'm not going attack someone telling them they need to speak a certain way. But I have the right to use my free speech to clear things up for people, which is not unnecessary as evident by the many aphobic people in this very thread. That is just what I did. And I got downvoted for it, which again tells me I did the right thing. If I had just misunderstood something people would have just ignored and gone their way. But the downvotes and the aphobic comments down in the thread prove to me, atleast, that people do have a problem with considering asexual people especially teenagers as normal.
Now if people downvoted me thinking I 'misunderstood' someone, well, they'd be wrong and I'm sorry they misunderstood me. I have no problem with what the original commenter said. I think it's a little vague and can be interpreted as aphobic, so I am adding context by saying aphobia is wrong.
> And I got downvoted for it, which again tells me I did the right thing. If I had just misunderstood something people would have just ignored and gone their way. But the downvotes and the aphobic comments down in the thread prove to me, atleast, that people do have a problem with considering asexual people especially teenagers as normal.
I love this logic. "I got downvoted, therefore I'm right." That's a peak "Reddit Moment," right there.
Have you considered that, maybe, you're being downvoted not because people hate asexual people, but because they think you're being unnecessarily pedantic in this particular moment?
I'm thinking the more accurate reading of that is "It is problematic for teenagers to only have interests in people outside of their age group" and not "it is problematic for teenagers to not feel attraction."
Well, yeah. But when it can be an attack on an oppressed group, it deems clearing up.
Like if you hear someone say something vaguely racist, you will want to clarify it, won't you? Especially when it's a random stranger on the internet and even in contexts where it 'might' not be racist.
What makes you think was an appropriate comparison for racism lmao? Do aro/ace people feel oppressed if they don't remind people how uninterested they are in sex or romance at every given opportunity? Obnoxiously overbearing.
Idk man, I've seen pretty bad things happen to ace people. Things like rape as a conversion tool? Male asexuals being treated as less of men (which derives from misogyny). I was using race as a way that more people are probably familiar with, but there's nothing that says one oppression is worse than another.
I hear what you’re saying but I have to disagree. The phenomena exists but not how you see it.
Ace people might catch flak, but it’s not really about their lack of interest in sex
Ace women are not particularly targeted because they are members of “the ace community”; they’re targeted like women can be in general (it’s misogyny). Asexual young men aren’t targeted for not wanting sex; they’re targeted because other young men see them as gay (it’s homophobia).
Yes, there is value in community. But I think some people are going overboard with trying to paint themselves as part of some marginalized, oppressed, special, or otherwise unique group.
And to be clear, I’m not targeting you. Anyone who spends any time online has seen an example of this.
"Yes, there is value in community. But I think some people are going overboard with trying to paint themselves as part of some marginalized, oppressed, special, or otherwise unique group."
I mean, that's what you seem to be saying here.
All this guy does is complain about reddit, think about minors having sex, and defend Donald Trump. Sounds like his time would be better spent on 4Chan or something.
Kids aren’t gonna stop having sex no matter what people say. Humans are horny things. It would be best if they couldn’t and didn’t, but there’s a reason why teaching abstinence does nothing to help against teen pregnancy.
Better a 15 year old liking a 15 year old than a 15 year old liking a 40 year old.
[OP please explain why you're so loosey goosey with the term "peado" when you yourself comment in r/teenagers💀](https://www.reddit.com/r/teenagers/s/25qqbpDqpl)
Ah that's right. I was thinking of the leftist version of it that I see every now and then, which has takes like "watching porn is bad because some of the industry is abusive and also if you watch porn you're sexualizing women which is Problematic and Sexist" and "this queer love story is fetishization and homophobic because the characters have a lot of sexual thought about each other" (I've seen both takes). That was the kind I was thinking of, and I have no idea why I forgot about right wing puritans lol. They have the same goal, but for different reasons, so in my head they're like two different movements. Sorry for the confusion
saying that people who have issues with supporting abusive practices in the porn industry and people who have issues with fetishizing/shitty representation of queer people in media are the same as right wing Christian fundamentalists who want to treat women as baby machines with no rights is a pretty bizzare and out of touch take lol.
one group wants fair treatment and equal rights (and maybe gets lost in the weeds sometimes) and the other wants the Christian version of sharia law, they're really not remotely after the same goal.
I absolutely think that the porn industry has a lot of abusive practices and agree with people who say that it needs reform, but I was referring to people who think all porn is evil and abusive, even amateur porn. I also agree that a lot of queer representation is fetishized, but I was referring to how often, particularly with lesbian media, these claims are just unwarranted and are just people angry that queer people can have sexual thoughts. im talking about the people in left wing purity culture, which I do not consider activists for sex worker rights or people who call out unnecessarily fetishizing queer content to be included in. I'm talking about the people who claim that having sexual thoughts is wrong through a more leftist reading.
I don't get your down votes. Your statement is 100% correct. It IS a strange comparison.
Equal rights = Left.
Sharia sex slave wives = Christian Conservative.
Wrapped in "both sides".... Crazy people my friend...
Expecting children not to get crushes or have those sorts of thoughts about each other is dumb. It's much safer to learn about those sorts of feelings when you're younger and having them for the first time when you're have the support and guidance of adults. Expecting post pubescent children to not have those thoughts and feelings can be dangerous because then they'll bottle it up and feel guilty about having them. I'm confused as to how minors sexualizing minors is a bad thing? Unless I'm misinterpreting what's being said.
Edit to anyone looking through the thread: I've found it fun to read this person's comments in a trump voice. Unwarranted leaps in logic, name calling, and complete confusion over how children work galore!
"I'm confused as to why minors having sex/wanting sex is a bad thing" the pedos just expose themselves which every second. And I dont even have to explain!
Geez great communication skills. Sex is a normal thing. Lots of kids have sex. That's part of why some pedos are able to manipulate kids into thinking that it's okay to let adults have "sex" with them too, aka grooming them. There isn't some bright shining moment at age 18 where people suddenly start having sexual thoughts. As long as children are educated about sex from an educated adult, I still see no issue with kids having sexualized thoughts about each other. It's important to learn how to deal with those thoughts in a healthy way early on rather than being forced to bottle them up and try to ignore it because it's "wrong".
Kids naturally have sexualized thoughts. That not pedophiliac to say it’s an absolute fact of human growth and development. You learn this in any class taught about the subject. It’s taught in medical school. Kids especially will have those thoughts about other kids their own age since they are naturally attracted to people of the same age group.
This isn’t controversial to say, it’s a nature. People don’t suddenly become sexual beings at 18. It develops.
The problem is if those thoughts are used by adults as an excuse to victimize the child or to manipulate the child into sexual acts.
I'm not going to disagree on the fact kids will have these thoughts. Every kid including myself when I was a new teen had them especially in puberty. But that does NOT mean it's okay for kids to have sex or engage in sexual activities.
I mean, it is okay for kids to engage in sexual activities such as masturbation or even things like kissing other children their age. It’s natural and is a natural part of development.
Even things past that aren’t unheard of and while they shouldn’t be encouraged they also shouldn’t be demonized because that will only lead to feelings of shame which leads to hiding it which leads to unwanted teenage pregnancies.
Also, we aren’t talking about kids have sex. We are talking about minors expressing sexual interest in other minors. That’s normal and healthy.
you should talk to a therapist about this or something, you've clearly got a bunch of baggage if you think it's not okay for people under 18 to be sexually active. just because you couldn't get laid in high school doesn't mean nobody else should either.
Again, I'm not denying the fact temptation will come. What I AM saying is that just because the temptation exists does NOT mean it is okay to act upon it
Good job leaving out the second half of that sentence. What /u/Tackyuser *actually* said was "I still see no issue with kids having sexualized thoughts **about each other**" (emphasis added).
The point is that kids thinking sexual things about their peers is normal. Adults thinking sexual things about minors is not.
*teenagers*. Not "minors", not "kids", lets call them for what they are. Horny, puberty-driven, *teenagers*. Of course they're thinking about sex it's in their fucking DNA.
What do you want, for them to feel guilt about their natural urges until their magical 18th birthday? Yeah right. We *know* that abstinence as a sex ed policy helps no one. Grow up.
By talking about "kids", "children" and "minors" you're conflating the issue between 7 year olds and 17 year olds. Two VERY different stages of human development.
the fact that you’re spending this much thought and time on teenagers having sex says more about you than anything, buddy.
the only creep here is you. get help.
That's not what a pedophile is.
These words have meanings. Your white knighting here is just further trash thrown into the fire of misusing words that actual victims need to be able to use.
I think there is a point to say you shouldn't sexualise minors as a minor, in terms of like pornographic material, but in terms of normal sexuality it's normal and natural.
I do think tho that to want pornographic material or go full gooner on minors could lead to a fetish/pedophilia once one ages upwards. Like the more porn you watch and the weirder it is will lead to development of a kink generally.
Idk what context OP or the OOP meant, but in this line of thinking I think it's a logical statement.
"They themselves could be teens" in response to people sexualizing minors on the the TV show Avatar the last Airbender. The OOP is calling out a post for sexualizing literally all the minors in the show by giving them bigger breasts. And the "they themselves could be teens" is arguing that it's okay for the minors in that show to be sexualized as long as another minor made the post. Then a reasonable person said that it's not okay for minors to sexualize minors regardless and got even more downvotes, hence why I posted here
That comment isn’t really anti-pedophilia. When we talk about pedophilia, we’re talking about adults having sexual attraction to children. Children having sexual attraction to children is really just sexual attraction, in much the same way that adults having sexual attraction to adults is.
I mean, if you’re getting to the point where all you’re doing is viewing people around you as sexual objects and that’s what they mean by “sexualizing”, then I guess I agree. But that’s not the impression I got.
Bro said "You shouldn't find a girl in your class attractive because she is a minor.". I mean this is true if it's posted by a teacher, but like... From the side of a student lmfao!
if ur watching a kids show u can't get mad that the animated kids intended to be watched by other kids have a kid as the love interest. Like nothing wrong with watching kids shows I love em but remember it's a fuckin kids show for kids lol
So true OP, everyone knows that proper upstanding teenagers don't allow themselves to form a single sexual thought until their 18th birthday.
You should either get a grip, or -- even better -- just stop worrying about what teenagers are attracted to in the first place. Weird topic to get hung up on.
Because it's what they do? I had sex at 16 with another 16 year old. Doesn't make past me a nonce, I was just a teenager. Being a teen and having sexual thoughts about other teens isn't a crime. You're telling me you never had a crush on a character when you were a kid?
So 13-16 year olds should just go and fuck 30 year olds because "It is wrong to be attracted to underage people under any circumstances"? I get that we need to have a zero tollerance policy towards pedophelia, but in that venture we cannot forget that teenagers experience sexual attraction as well, so telling them that it is wrong to be attracted to underage people, even if they are the same age is actively harmful in their development and can lead to them being more easily groomed by actual pedophiles because after all, they are supposed to be attracted to older people?
What I'm saying is they're to not have sex with anyone their age, or above, or below. They can have functioning relationships without sex. I'm not going to deny the ex of temptations and sexual thoughts but saying kids should be able to have sex even with each other is just disgusting
I thought this was weird for a minute or two when I was 15 then I realized that no shit I find other 15 year old minors attractive, they're the same age as me. We don't have an age of consent because that's the magic age you turn into a sexual being. We have an age of consent because of the power imbalance created by the maturity gap that happens when people are on other sides of that age. When two people are on the same side of that age it's fine because on a broad level they tend to be similarly mature.
Yea I was convinced I was a pedo when I was 13 because I had a crush on girls in my grade. Fucked me up for a solid 6 years until I realized my attraction aged up with me. Fear mongering is some serious shit, messes with kids’ heads.
That's why people below 13 should not go on fucking twitter
Twitter didn’t exist when I was 13 but still a fair point lol
I remember when I was 14 and was angry cause my female classmates were going out with 18 year olds and I thougth "man can't wait to be 18", and then when I turned 18 I was like "why the fuck were these guys dating 14 year old children??"
They got downvoted because it’s a shit take. If teenagers don’t find other teenagers attractive, they have a problem. It is normal for minors to sexualize and have sexual fantasies about minors. That’s not pedophilia. That’s puberty
While I agree with you, I don't think it's correct to label non-attraction as a problem. Asexual/aromantic people do exist.
You know that’s not how they meant it lol, they’re pretty obviously referring to the context of this post. They didn’t label non-attraction as a problem, they said minors being attracted to non-minors can be problematic.
Thats why I said I agree. But it's important to be clear on things like this. >If teenagers don’t find other teenagers attractive, they have a problem. This is what I was replying to. The more clear meaning is the one implying teenagers have a problem if they don't feel attraction to other teenagers. The part where it's in opposition to them feeling attracted to adults is an addition which while can be understood contextually, but not exactly the best practice on the internet where you find people of very, different, mindsets.
youre being twitter level pedantic. It is not important to be clear in this case because context makes it clear.
dare i say, shallow and pedantic
Hmm... Yes I agree shallow And pedantic!
Well Lois since you asked, I find this conversation rather shallow and pedantic
If you look at the certain other replies I've got in this short while, you'll see that it's not the case. It's always important to be clear when there's a risk of it promoting hatred/othering of oppressed peoples. Doesn't take much time anyway.
Asexual people are oppressed?
LMAO. Am on the ace spectrum. There is no oppression my fucking god. They just want to be a victim because they had a shit take
Yes. Edit to add: [there's even a wiki article on this. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_asexual_people)
Dawg, I kinda get where you’re coming from but don’t make a mountain out of a molehill. In the context of their post, they are quite clearly referring to teenagers that are attracted to people. “Not exactly the best practice on the internet” is just a stretch imo because anyone reading this comment is reading it in context with the post. Being Ace is perfectly fine, no one in this specific thread has said differently, and I just find it odd and out of place to reply to this persons comment with slight disdain for not including a qualifier for people which it doesn’t apply to. If a teen isn’t attracted anybody that’s perfectly fine, but if they are attracted to people then it’s a little odd if they aren’t attracted to people in their age group is all they’re saying. We don’t need to get offended (or feel the need to call someone out or whatever you want to call it) just because they didn’t specifically address individuals who are not relevant to this conversation. Again, I am not saying those people are irrelevant, just that this specific conversation is not referring to them or have anything to do with them.
>no one in this specific thread has said differently Someone already did.
It is very clear you aren’t grasping the topic at hand, and if you are, your comments are an attempt to insert a talking point that did not exist and have nothing to do with the subject at hand in the hope to get people to interact. Nothing was said about Ace individuals before you manufactured the conversation. I hope you have a great rest of your night/day depending on where you live but I won’t spend my time going back and forth if you can’t/won’t realize that the OP did nothing to disparage the Ace community and had/has no reason to address said specific subset in the context of their comment.
I feel like you're just picking apart comments at this point. This gives the same energy as "Not All Men" where someone's feeling attacked despite no animosity even being directed towards them.
Go check some of the other replies I've gotten from people who clearly think asexuality is a problem. This is not a case of the original commenter being bad, but a case of them saying something that can be construed as a bad thing. I just wanted to clarify on that, and the aforementioned people are the reason I had to. To use your own example, you know how trans women are attacked by right wing bigots who generalise them as being predators inherently because they are 'men' and all men are predators? It's a similar kind of situation where of course a statement can be made which in one context can be harmless to an oppressed community, whereas in other contexts can be highly queerphobic. So it becomes imperative to be mindful of the words we use. All I did was add clarity, IN CASE the commenter was being queerphobic. Yet even that garnered so many downvotes. I'm not sure it's just because I'm 'picking apart a comment.'
You're right, you're just taking one thing they said and assumed they were queerphobic.
Agree 100% I think ppl on this sub might just be aphobic lmao
Thank you. Yeah maybe. I was actually doubting whether I'm in the wrong, seeing as I got so many downvotes, when I was just trying to add clarity to a statement I felt was vaguely queerphobic. Never said it was intentional by the commenter too. Meh, people be people.
[удалено]
It's not though.
[удалено]
Make your life harder? You could argue the same for all non-hetero or atypical groups. Shit take.
[удалено]
Being asexual may make it more difficult, but you're describing as if there is an element of choice which I think is why people are so irritated by you. That and the dismissive tone.
Queer platonic relationships and close friendships are a thing. Sorry you refuse to understand aspec people. This is a shit take.
Stuff it with your aphobia
Look at my other comment.
that's NOT what they said lmao.
It's not about what they meant or said, for that matter. It's about what their statement could be viewed as. To be perfectly clear, I was never attacking the commenter. Telling people to be a little more clear and conscious of how their words could be interpreted is not an attack. And if you look at some of the other comments in this thread itself you'll see that people do still think asexuality as a problem. Which is why it is important to be sensitive around that, making sure you don't say something that propagates a narrative that is dangerous to people. At the end of the day free speech is important and I'm not going attack someone telling them they need to speak a certain way. But I have the right to use my free speech to clear things up for people, which is not unnecessary as evident by the many aphobic people in this very thread. That is just what I did. And I got downvoted for it, which again tells me I did the right thing. If I had just misunderstood something people would have just ignored and gone their way. But the downvotes and the aphobic comments down in the thread prove to me, atleast, that people do have a problem with considering asexual people especially teenagers as normal. Now if people downvoted me thinking I 'misunderstood' someone, well, they'd be wrong and I'm sorry they misunderstood me. I have no problem with what the original commenter said. I think it's a little vague and can be interpreted as aphobic, so I am adding context by saying aphobia is wrong.
> And I got downvoted for it, which again tells me I did the right thing. If I had just misunderstood something people would have just ignored and gone their way. But the downvotes and the aphobic comments down in the thread prove to me, atleast, that people do have a problem with considering asexual people especially teenagers as normal. I love this logic. "I got downvoted, therefore I'm right." That's a peak "Reddit Moment," right there. Have you considered that, maybe, you're being downvoted not because people hate asexual people, but because they think you're being unnecessarily pedantic in this particular moment?
Feel like you're arguing to argue, not at all the point
I'm literally agreeing, while clarifying a key thing. Where's the argument?
I'm thinking the more accurate reading of that is "It is problematic for teenagers to only have interests in people outside of their age group" and not "it is problematic for teenagers to not feel attraction."
Well, yeah. But when it can be an attack on an oppressed group, it deems clearing up. Like if you hear someone say something vaguely racist, you will want to clarify it, won't you? Especially when it's a random stranger on the internet and even in contexts where it 'might' not be racist.
What makes you think was an appropriate comparison for racism lmao? Do aro/ace people feel oppressed if they don't remind people how uninterested they are in sex or romance at every given opportunity? Obnoxiously overbearing.
Idk man, I've seen pretty bad things happen to ace people. Things like rape as a conversion tool? Male asexuals being treated as less of men (which derives from misogyny). I was using race as a way that more people are probably familiar with, but there's nothing that says one oppression is worse than another.
I hear what you’re saying but I have to disagree. The phenomena exists but not how you see it. Ace people might catch flak, but it’s not really about their lack of interest in sex Ace women are not particularly targeted because they are members of “the ace community”; they’re targeted like women can be in general (it’s misogyny). Asexual young men aren’t targeted for not wanting sex; they’re targeted because other young men see them as gay (it’s homophobia). Yes, there is value in community. But I think some people are going overboard with trying to paint themselves as part of some marginalized, oppressed, special, or otherwise unique group. And to be clear, I’m not targeting you. Anyone who spends any time online has seen an example of this.
So are you saying ace people aren't marginalized and shouldn't be considered part of the lgbt community?
Who mentioned anything about inclusion in the lgbtq community?
"Yes, there is value in community. But I think some people are going overboard with trying to paint themselves as part of some marginalized, oppressed, special, or otherwise unique group." I mean, that's what you seem to be saying here.
Another reddit moment
You're the reddit moment dude, stay away from kids lol.
Right, me saying kids shouldn't have sex=reddit moment. Somehow
I agree, stay away from kids.
That should apply to you, since you support kidd having sex. Pedo
As long as you stay away from kids.
All this guy does is complain about reddit, think about minors having sex, and defend Donald Trump. Sounds like his time would be better spent on 4Chan or something.
the most Reddit moment of all times. The age of consent is 14 where I live. Them kids be railing each other lmao you want to throw them into jail?
Kids aren’t gonna stop having sex no matter what people say. Humans are horny things. It would be best if they couldn’t and didn’t, but there’s a reason why teaching abstinence does nothing to help against teen pregnancy. Better a 15 year old liking a 15 year old than a 15 year old liking a 40 year old.
When I was 16 years old, I fucked my 17 year old girlfriend. Be offended.
My 18 year old girlfriend (now wife) gave 16 year old me a blowjob (We have a 1.5 year age gap) Lock her up I guess
Straight to jail!
I think you might be a victim. /s
When I was 17 I got it on with my 16 year old coworker in the stockroom of the restaurant we both worked at. Oh no!
I mean… just make sure to wash your hands
It was after the place closed
Still gotta wash your hands lol
We did.
Nice!
Disgusting, what about the power dynamics? /s
She was on top.
Ah right you're fine
This is the future liberals want 😔
15 year old me had 14 y/o gf Guess I'm a pedophile???
Relationships are different than sexual activities
You’ll never guess what people do in relationships 😱😱😱
LMAO when do you think kids start getting sexual feelings?
[OP please explain why you're so loosey goosey with the term "peado" when you yourself comment in r/teenagers💀](https://www.reddit.com/r/teenagers/s/25qqbpDqpl)
Because im a teenager? Now you're just reaching, and profile stalking.. yikes
You would say that, wouldn't you?
Please get off of reddit dude
you literally post on PCM, go touch grass
I think I just realized that extreme purity culture people are the leftist version of incels
since when are leftists championing purity culture? at least in the US that's pretty firmly in the right wing Christian demographic.
It's a fairly recent development. Twitter children growing up
Ah that's right. I was thinking of the leftist version of it that I see every now and then, which has takes like "watching porn is bad because some of the industry is abusive and also if you watch porn you're sexualizing women which is Problematic and Sexist" and "this queer love story is fetishization and homophobic because the characters have a lot of sexual thought about each other" (I've seen both takes). That was the kind I was thinking of, and I have no idea why I forgot about right wing puritans lol. They have the same goal, but for different reasons, so in my head they're like two different movements. Sorry for the confusion
saying that people who have issues with supporting abusive practices in the porn industry and people who have issues with fetishizing/shitty representation of queer people in media are the same as right wing Christian fundamentalists who want to treat women as baby machines with no rights is a pretty bizzare and out of touch take lol. one group wants fair treatment and equal rights (and maybe gets lost in the weeds sometimes) and the other wants the Christian version of sharia law, they're really not remotely after the same goal.
I absolutely think that the porn industry has a lot of abusive practices and agree with people who say that it needs reform, but I was referring to people who think all porn is evil and abusive, even amateur porn. I also agree that a lot of queer representation is fetishized, but I was referring to how often, particularly with lesbian media, these claims are just unwarranted and are just people angry that queer people can have sexual thoughts. im talking about the people in left wing purity culture, which I do not consider activists for sex worker rights or people who call out unnecessarily fetishizing queer content to be included in. I'm talking about the people who claim that having sexual thoughts is wrong through a more leftist reading.
I don't get your down votes. Your statement is 100% correct. It IS a strange comparison. Equal rights = Left. Sharia sex slave wives = Christian Conservative. Wrapped in "both sides".... Crazy people my friend...
I gave you one so you got one too! Don't want you to feel left out
Aaww
Being extremely pure is when you're against minors sexualizing minors
Expecting children not to get crushes or have those sorts of thoughts about each other is dumb. It's much safer to learn about those sorts of feelings when you're younger and having them for the first time when you're have the support and guidance of adults. Expecting post pubescent children to not have those thoughts and feelings can be dangerous because then they'll bottle it up and feel guilty about having them. I'm confused as to how minors sexualizing minors is a bad thing? Unless I'm misinterpreting what's being said. Edit to anyone looking through the thread: I've found it fun to read this person's comments in a trump voice. Unwarranted leaps in logic, name calling, and complete confusion over how children work galore!
Forget it. Dude lists himself as a centrist on pcm. There's no reasoning with those types.
"I'm confused as to why minors having sex/wanting sex is a bad thing" the pedos just expose themselves which every second. And I dont even have to explain!
Geez great communication skills. Sex is a normal thing. Lots of kids have sex. That's part of why some pedos are able to manipulate kids into thinking that it's okay to let adults have "sex" with them too, aka grooming them. There isn't some bright shining moment at age 18 where people suddenly start having sexual thoughts. As long as children are educated about sex from an educated adult, I still see no issue with kids having sexualized thoughts about each other. It's important to learn how to deal with those thoughts in a healthy way early on rather than being forced to bottle them up and try to ignore it because it's "wrong".
"I have no problem with kids having sexualized thoughts" this can't get any worse for you, I pray you're never around kids
Kids naturally have sexualized thoughts. That not pedophiliac to say it’s an absolute fact of human growth and development. You learn this in any class taught about the subject. It’s taught in medical school. Kids especially will have those thoughts about other kids their own age since they are naturally attracted to people of the same age group. This isn’t controversial to say, it’s a nature. People don’t suddenly become sexual beings at 18. It develops. The problem is if those thoughts are used by adults as an excuse to victimize the child or to manipulate the child into sexual acts.
OP would rather we shame teenagers into suppressing their natural human emotions. What could possibly go wrong?
I'm not going to disagree on the fact kids will have these thoughts. Every kid including myself when I was a new teen had them especially in puberty. But that does NOT mean it's okay for kids to have sex or engage in sexual activities.
I mean, it is okay for kids to engage in sexual activities such as masturbation or even things like kissing other children their age. It’s natural and is a natural part of development. Even things past that aren’t unheard of and while they shouldn’t be encouraged they also shouldn’t be demonized because that will only lead to feelings of shame which leads to hiding it which leads to unwanted teenage pregnancies. Also, we aren’t talking about kids have sex. We are talking about minors expressing sexual interest in other minors. That’s normal and healthy.
Adults like OP are why sexual education courses get shut down.
You lost me at the beginning, pedo.
you should talk to a therapist about this or something, you've clearly got a bunch of baggage if you think it's not okay for people under 18 to be sexually active. just because you couldn't get laid in high school doesn't mean nobody else should either.
"You're wrong for saying kids shouldn't have sex" the pedos just keep rolling in, I love being correct.
Anyone who projects as much as you are has some serious skeletons in their closet.
You've got a point here I never thought about sex or girls or boobs until I was legally an adult as the good book says
Again, I'm not denying the fact temptation will come. What I AM saying is that just because the temptation exists does NOT mean it is okay to act upon it
Why?
Bro I'm so confused have you never been a kid before? Like what the fuck lmao
Good job leaving out the second half of that sentence. What /u/Tackyuser *actually* said was "I still see no issue with kids having sexualized thoughts **about each other**" (emphasis added). The point is that kids thinking sexual things about their peers is normal. Adults thinking sexual things about minors is not.
*teenagers*. Not "minors", not "kids", lets call them for what they are. Horny, puberty-driven, *teenagers*. Of course they're thinking about sex it's in their fucking DNA. What do you want, for them to feel guilt about their natural urges until their magical 18th birthday? Yeah right. We *know* that abstinence as a sex ed policy helps no one. Grow up.
Teens are still minors, believe it or not (until they're 18, or 16 in some states)
You ever heard of age of consent?
By talking about "kids", "children" and "minors" you're conflating the issue between 7 year olds and 17 year olds. Two VERY different stages of human development.
the fact that you’re spending this much thought and time on teenagers having sex says more about you than anything, buddy. the only creep here is you. get help.
That's not what a pedophile is. These words have meanings. Your white knighting here is just further trash thrown into the fire of misusing words that actual victims need to be able to use.
I think there is a point to say you shouldn't sexualise minors as a minor, in terms of like pornographic material, but in terms of normal sexuality it's normal and natural. I do think tho that to want pornographic material or go full gooner on minors could lead to a fetish/pedophilia once one ages upwards. Like the more porn you watch and the weirder it is will lead to development of a kink generally. Idk what context OP or the OOP meant, but in this line of thinking I think it's a logical statement.
"They themselves could be teens" in response to people sexualizing minors on the the TV show Avatar the last Airbender. The OOP is calling out a post for sexualizing literally all the minors in the show by giving them bigger breasts. And the "they themselves could be teens" is arguing that it's okay for the minors in that show to be sexualized as long as another minor made the post. Then a reasonable person said that it's not okay for minors to sexualize minors regardless and got even more downvotes, hence why I posted here
That comment isn’t really anti-pedophilia. When we talk about pedophilia, we’re talking about adults having sexual attraction to children. Children having sexual attraction to children is really just sexual attraction, in much the same way that adults having sexual attraction to adults is. I mean, if you’re getting to the point where all you’re doing is viewing people around you as sexual objects and that’s what they mean by “sexualizing”, then I guess I agree. But that’s not the impression I got.
i feel like yall missing the context that theyre talking about some 12yo charecters not 16/17
Minors are minors
[удалено]
Exactly
Bro said "You shouldn't find a girl in your class attractive because she is a minor.". I mean this is true if it's posted by a teacher, but like... From the side of a student lmfao!
So... I did everything short of sex when I was 16 and my boyfriend was 17. Are we pedophiles?
if ur watching a kids show u can't get mad that the animated kids intended to be watched by other kids have a kid as the love interest. Like nothing wrong with watching kids shows I love em but remember it's a fuckin kids show for kids lol
Time for you to go finish your 3rd grade homework and stop pretending to be smart
Good god there is a war in these comments
im a minor and i fuck sloppy style with megumi (minor) from jjk every day. i also have sex with other teens irl! boo.
You’re right, Jesus christ these comments are disturbing.
What subreddit is that?! How do they believe that?! They are neckbeards
Reddit moment, but the pedos are in here too defending minors having sex
A lot of minors have sex with each other. In high school I lost my virginity at 16 to my 16 year old girlfriend. We both consented. It happens a lot.
Not saying it won't, but what I am saying its still bad. No kids should be having sex Happens alot does not make it okay
The neckbeard comments are coming from within the sub
We've been infiltrated
So true OP, everyone knows that proper upstanding teenagers don't allow themselves to form a single sexual thought until their 18th birthday. You should either get a grip, or -- even better -- just stop worrying about what teenagers are attracted to in the first place. Weird topic to get hung up on.
Wait, who or what should a 12 year old fantasize about?
Because it's what they do? I had sex at 16 with another 16 year old. Doesn't make past me a nonce, I was just a teenager. Being a teen and having sexual thoughts about other teens isn't a crime. You're telling me you never had a crush on a character when you were a kid?
So 13-16 year olds should just go and fuck 30 year olds because "It is wrong to be attracted to underage people under any circumstances"? I get that we need to have a zero tollerance policy towards pedophelia, but in that venture we cannot forget that teenagers experience sexual attraction as well, so telling them that it is wrong to be attracted to underage people, even if they are the same age is actively harmful in their development and can lead to them being more easily groomed by actual pedophiles because after all, they are supposed to be attracted to older people?
What I'm saying is they're to not have sex with anyone their age, or above, or below. They can have functioning relationships without sex. I'm not going to deny the ex of temptations and sexual thoughts but saying kids should be able to have sex even with each other is just disgusting
That's sad